Although I acknowledge the inaccuracies of my last post (-) on Abkhazia, I am rapidly acquiring the idea that much of what is happening in the news of late, is partly a welcome change in terms of various countries where human rights abuse is not just commonplace but expected - in the case of Bahrain and the recent beating of activist Nabeel Rajab the BBC website states that,
"Confrontations between security forces and demonstrators occur almost daily."
To give the next paragraph context, please have a map of the Middle East open - I used this one:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm
(Link will open in a new window)
From the continuing conflict between Russia and the US in Abkhazia and Georgia,
the extension of a state of emergency in the "oil town" of Zhanaozen across the Caspian Sea in western Kazakhstan,
the continuing tension between Turkey and Armenia over the much-denied Turkish genocide of Armenians almost a century ago,
the crackdown on political dissent in Azerbaijan towards the end of 2011,
the arrest of Turkey's General Ilker Basbug over allegations of government overthrow plans,
the recent bomb blast in Damascus,
the endless tension and violence between Israel and Palestine,
three consecutive days of roadside bombings in Iraq (hot on the heels of America's declaration of military downsizing and their withdrawal in December),
Iran tightening its grip on control of the seas around the Middle East (including the oil shipping routes that could threaten Western economies and energy needs),
the 105,000 stateless bidoons in Kuwait in stark contrast to the looming $9bn Chinese oil refinery deal,
the UN's alarm at an increasing rate of state-condoned execution and other capital punishment in Saudi Arabia (according to Amnesty International this is often to silence those simply exercising their right to freedom of speech and religion),
the fore-mentioned beating of Nabeel Rajab in Bahrain (as well as the linked "scandal" over the Countess of Wessex's gift of jewellery)...
the trail of chaos runs all the way from the Caucasus to Yemen on the south-west tip of the Arabian Peninsula, where the current President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, is only willing to step down from power next month if he is granted immunity from prosecution for human rights abuses.
And just across the water, the political mayhem continues in Egypt, North and South Sudan and Somalia.
The Middle East is an alphabet soup of utter political and economic chaos.
Against the news that Russia has surpassed Saudi Arabia in oil production, we must weigh the fact that this is based on last year's figures, not Saudi Arabia's unannounced projected production for this year.
At each turn there is cause to question the politics involved: who is manipulating who, in other words? Is Russia manipulating Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Is the US manipulating Georgia? And has the US ever NOT been manipulating the Arabian states since its installation of the Israeli state? And is Saudi Arabia manipulating everyone, running rough shod over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights while they keep the entire region unstable for their own benefit, trying to recover on losses?
Or is the US using its systems of political and economic assassination - I HERE REFER THE READER TO THE FILM "ZEITGEIST: ADDENDUM" AND THE BOOK "CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN" BY JOHN PERKINS -
to continually destabilise the entire Middle Eastern region so it can hold the rest of the world to ransom with oil prices?
In the opening chapter of his book "Crimes Against Humanity", Geoffrey Robertson lays down a brief but concise history of the evolution of human rights. Initially they were based on might makes right, and in some senses not much has changed - it is still the ruling attitude in Burma and Zimbabwe, for example.
So the ultimate, original "right" was the Divine Right of Kings, and for a long time it held sway. Ultimately, though, it was removed - however gradually - starting with the trial and execution of England's Charles I (beheaded in 1649). This has been compounded more recently by the trial at the Hague of Slobodan Milosevic, as well as the Arusha trials after Rwanda.
Later, the most important "right" was considered that of the individual to their life and liberty - going through various "drafts" in England and France before (questionably) finding its paradigm in the US Bill of Rights. This has gradually been magnified, it seems, so that "life and liberty" now means the freedom of some hegeminous despot or party to tyrannise their own people without fear of repercussions at an international level.
Robertson seems to argue that things are slowly changing, using the examples of Yugoslavia, Rwanda and so on. But are things really changing?
If we combine the idea of economic assassination and that of human rights lobbying (which is effectively what the US and UK visits to Burma constitute), then things aren't really changing, they're simply going through a different kind of evolution. Are the US and the UK really interested in human rights in Burma? I very much doubt it, however much public opinion might be brought to bear upon the matter. The simple truth is that China poses such a massive economic threat already, that unless democracy can be installed in the countries China currently subjugates, the US and UK economies will never be able to survive - reliant as they already are on a vast array of Chinese exports. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were news, soon, of similar visits to Tibet and/or China on the subject of that country's loss of freedom.
The point is, human rights only seem to hit the international agenda when they are aligned with the interests of one of the Big 5 at the UN - most especially the UK and the US, less so Russia and China.
And here is the question:
When the UN begs Yemen not to make a deal of amnesty with its current President, it is only voicing the voices of the Security Council, and that basically means the Big 5, none of whom can have seen fit to veto the idea; but would the Security Council ever sanction such "action" against one of the Big 5? Of course not.
Not even when the US President signs the National Defense Authorisation Act, which will legally allow his administration to detain, indefinitely and without trial, any person, of any nationality, ANYWHERE!
Our supposed freedom to life and liberty is only so long as it doesn't impinge on the interests of another, at an individual level or an international level. That seems to be the crux of the matter. But our governments are now extrapolating from this concept, the idea that no-one may do anything that may impinge on the possible interests of another at any point in the future for any reason whatsoever.
This, then, is why we must fight for the rights of others: because even as they lose theirs, we give permission to others to take our own.
No comments:
Post a Comment